Comment fluorescents -- a net negative? (Score 1) 801
1) Is conserving energy more environmentally sound than preventing mercury pollution?
In some cases, the answer clearly is no. Mercury is highly poisonous, it persists in the environment (it doesn't ever break down), and it can't be practically cleaned up once it is dispersed. If renewable energy, such as wind or solar, is wasted, the environmental harm is relatively limited and it stops when the wasting stops. Even if mercury-containing coal is being burnt, it is easier to scrub the power-plant exhaust at a single point of pollution than to collect mercury diffused out over the environment (and the emitted carbon dioxide can be recovered by vegetation, although the environment may now contain tens of millions of years of released carbon-dioxide storage). Mercury and radioactive wastes are both truly horrible prospects as pollutants. Earthjustice calls mercury emissions "one of the most toxic pollutants emitted" (In Brief, p. 20, Spring 2006, "Cement Kilns Spew Mercury, Government Stands By"). Already the public is warned not to consume tuna, etc. very often due to mercury despite the dietary benefits of seafood.
In your article we read that various new energy efficiency technologies have saved billions in electricity costs including "high-frequency ballasts for fluorescent lamps are saving the United States around $5 billion worth of electricity and natural-gas costs" (p. 25). If it were to turn out that the cost of cleaning up mercury pollution exceeded $5 billion a year and, that once spread through out the environment, mercury becomes essentially irretrievable at any cost, then the energy savings would not be a net savings but a huge pollution mistake.
Some environmental groups have worked for years to remove sources of mercury pollution from the waste stream such thermometers, thermostats like in cars, etc. to protect us from environmental exposure such as through fish and so forth. Fluorescent light bulbs could quickly reverse this important progress.
2) Are fluorescent bulb the best way to conserve energy?
Incandescent bulbs are often called inefficient; however, the energy they use goes about 1/2 to light and 1/2 to heat. In homes, equipped with electric heat, in the winter incandescent bulbs are 100% efficient, because heat produced by the an incandescent light bulb offsets heat the electric furnace would have had to produce; they also offset heat a fuel-burning furnace would have had to provide. In the summer, ventilation or an air conditioner will have to dispose of the excess heat; however, in the summer, in a house with good natural lighting including solar tubes, less lights are needed than in winter.
In my area fluorescent bulbs were promoted as an easy way to conserve energy -- people had to make no changes in their lifestyle e.g. they could keep on burning a porch light and street lights all night, or illuminating their house while they are out, or illuminating rooms they don't occupy and at light levels they don't actually need. Both reducing unneeded lighting or use of fluorescent bulbs has the potential to reduce energy use, but reduced energy use would reduce coal-burning and accompanying mercury releases, unlike use of compact fluorescent bulbs which create a new source of mercury pollution.
Does it take more energy to manufacture a fluorescent tube and to dissemble it safely than the excess energy used by an incandescent? Their high price suggests it probably does. If you go a mile out of the way to deliver the (single) bulb to a recycler (to avoid breaking one at home in storage), how does that fraction of a gallon of gas alone compare to the energy the incandescent would have wasted over its life time?
The purported long life of compact fluorescent bulbs has not proven true for us. We had to return several to the store when they were defective and several others have burned out after just a few years of use. We obtained both name brand and unknown brand bulbs. Recently I called a manufacture of the bulbs to report 3 that lasted less than 3 years (the manufacture date was coded on the bulb). They replaced the bulbs promptly, but the new warranty is for only 18 months. If the life of these bulbs is not as long as advertised, the environmental costs of these bulbs is yet higher.
3) How do real people dispose of fluorescent bulbs? Do people really recycle them? Hardly any one recycles them; hardly anyone realizes they should; and hardly anyone would bother if they knew they should. When I drive to our Metro toxic turn-in site I don't see others turning in bulbs. PGE, our power company, when they promoted fluorescents for months, only mentioned recycling once -- carefully obscuring the trouble they would be for the conscientious user (despite my pleas). As you mentioned in your article, it is not obvious where to recycle these bulbs, you'll have to spend time researching the matter, you may have to pay money to turn them in, you will have to drive out of your way to get to the recycler, and you will even waste energy (and pollution) driving your car there. Only a die-hard environmentalist would persist thorough this inconvenient recycling process; however, in communities such as mine these compact fluorescent bulbs are being pushed on the general population with coupons which can make them free. Certainly most of the bulbs are landing in the trash and going to a landfill and many are breaking along the way. And on my last trip to recycle 3 of these bulbs, I carried them in a small box which tipped over spilling two on a parking lot where they broke releasing their poison.
4) Whose promoting compact fluorescents and why? In Portland, OR, PGE (an Enron company) promoted the compact fluorescents heavily a couple of winters ago, with frequent deep-discounted coupons. I ended up with lots of them for free or near free. They explained that if we saved lots of energy they could sell it at a better price elsewhere during the anticipated regional shortages. Our energy savings, at cost of fluorescent mercury, became someone else's sufficiency so they could keep up their well-lit lifestyle, at cost of coal mercury. In other words, our saving energy made sure someone else wouldn't have to and so the net result was that mercury levels would increase from two sources instead of one.
Conclusion: Should I use compact fluorescent bulbs? After several years experience with the bulbs and a lot of thought as summarized above, I've concluded it's not a net good for the environment for me to buy these compact fluorescent bulbs. We live in the Portland, OR area where we can and do purchase only wind power, so our wasted energy does not produce mercury or carbon dioxide. The heat our incandescent bulbs generate is welcome in the winter, since we don't use our electric furnace, but we keep a cold house, wear lots of clothes, and burn a little wood to warm one small room when we're present. For the summer we need to get a solar-tube or something similar, as soon as we can manage, to avoid artificial light during the long days. We keep the lights off unless we're in a room and we need to see; my kids are in training to help. I use a tiny light with a switch for night needs. We're going to try the new wind-up flashlights (apparently with an internal metal hydride battery). I look forward to curtailing my trips to Metro toxics and worrying about a bulb breaking in my house and releasing its toxic cloud. In the meantime I am stuck trying to inform the rest of the world about the need to recycle fluorescent bulbs and I hope recycling them becomes more convenient so more people will.
In some cases, the answer clearly is no. Mercury is highly poisonous, it persists in the environment (it doesn't ever break down), and it can't be practically cleaned up once it is dispersed. If renewable energy, such as wind or solar, is wasted, the environmental harm is relatively limited and it stops when the wasting stops. Even if mercury-containing coal is being burnt, it is easier to scrub the power-plant exhaust at a single point of pollution than to collect mercury diffused out over the environment (and the emitted carbon dioxide can be recovered by vegetation, although the environment may now contain tens of millions of years of released carbon-dioxide storage). Mercury and radioactive wastes are both truly horrible prospects as pollutants. Earthjustice calls mercury emissions "one of the most toxic pollutants emitted" (In Brief, p. 20, Spring 2006, "Cement Kilns Spew Mercury, Government Stands By"). Already the public is warned not to consume tuna, etc. very often due to mercury despite the dietary benefits of seafood.
In your article we read that various new energy efficiency technologies have saved billions in electricity costs including "high-frequency ballasts for fluorescent lamps are saving the United States around $5 billion worth of electricity and natural-gas costs" (p. 25). If it were to turn out that the cost of cleaning up mercury pollution exceeded $5 billion a year and, that once spread through out the environment, mercury becomes essentially irretrievable at any cost, then the energy savings would not be a net savings but a huge pollution mistake.
Some environmental groups have worked for years to remove sources of mercury pollution from the waste stream such thermometers, thermostats like in cars, etc. to protect us from environmental exposure such as through fish and so forth. Fluorescent light bulbs could quickly reverse this important progress.
2) Are fluorescent bulb the best way to conserve energy?
Incandescent bulbs are often called inefficient; however, the energy they use goes about 1/2 to light and 1/2 to heat. In homes, equipped with electric heat, in the winter incandescent bulbs are 100% efficient, because heat produced by the an incandescent light bulb offsets heat the electric furnace would have had to produce; they also offset heat a fuel-burning furnace would have had to provide. In the summer, ventilation or an air conditioner will have to dispose of the excess heat; however, in the summer, in a house with good natural lighting including solar tubes, less lights are needed than in winter.
In my area fluorescent bulbs were promoted as an easy way to conserve energy -- people had to make no changes in their lifestyle e.g. they could keep on burning a porch light and street lights all night, or illuminating their house while they are out, or illuminating rooms they don't occupy and at light levels they don't actually need. Both reducing unneeded lighting or use of fluorescent bulbs has the potential to reduce energy use, but reduced energy use would reduce coal-burning and accompanying mercury releases, unlike use of compact fluorescent bulbs which create a new source of mercury pollution.
Does it take more energy to manufacture a fluorescent tube and to dissemble it safely than the excess energy used by an incandescent? Their high price suggests it probably does. If you go a mile out of the way to deliver the (single) bulb to a recycler (to avoid breaking one at home in storage), how does that fraction of a gallon of gas alone compare to the energy the incandescent would have wasted over its life time?
The purported long life of compact fluorescent bulbs has not proven true for us. We had to return several to the store when they were defective and several others have burned out after just a few years of use. We obtained both name brand and unknown brand bulbs. Recently I called a manufacture of the bulbs to report 3 that lasted less than 3 years (the manufacture date was coded on the bulb). They replaced the bulbs promptly, but the new warranty is for only 18 months. If the life of these bulbs is not as long as advertised, the environmental costs of these bulbs is yet higher.
3) How do real people dispose of fluorescent bulbs? Do people really recycle them? Hardly any one recycles them; hardly anyone realizes they should; and hardly anyone would bother if they knew they should. When I drive to our Metro toxic turn-in site I don't see others turning in bulbs. PGE, our power company, when they promoted fluorescents for months, only mentioned recycling once -- carefully obscuring the trouble they would be for the conscientious user (despite my pleas). As you mentioned in your article, it is not obvious where to recycle these bulbs, you'll have to spend time researching the matter, you may have to pay money to turn them in, you will have to drive out of your way to get to the recycler, and you will even waste energy (and pollution) driving your car there. Only a die-hard environmentalist would persist thorough this inconvenient recycling process; however, in communities such as mine these compact fluorescent bulbs are being pushed on the general population with coupons which can make them free. Certainly most of the bulbs are landing in the trash and going to a landfill and many are breaking along the way. And on my last trip to recycle 3 of these bulbs, I carried them in a small box which tipped over spilling two on a parking lot where they broke releasing their poison.
4) Whose promoting compact fluorescents and why? In Portland, OR, PGE (an Enron company) promoted the compact fluorescents heavily a couple of winters ago, with frequent deep-discounted coupons. I ended up with lots of them for free or near free. They explained that if we saved lots of energy they could sell it at a better price elsewhere during the anticipated regional shortages. Our energy savings, at cost of fluorescent mercury, became someone else's sufficiency so they could keep up their well-lit lifestyle, at cost of coal mercury. In other words, our saving energy made sure someone else wouldn't have to and so the net result was that mercury levels would increase from two sources instead of one.
Conclusion: Should I use compact fluorescent bulbs? After several years experience with the bulbs and a lot of thought as summarized above, I've concluded it's not a net good for the environment for me to buy these compact fluorescent bulbs. We live in the Portland, OR area where we can and do purchase only wind power, so our wasted energy does not produce mercury or carbon dioxide. The heat our incandescent bulbs generate is welcome in the winter, since we don't use our electric furnace, but we keep a cold house, wear lots of clothes, and burn a little wood to warm one small room when we're present. For the summer we need to get a solar-tube or something similar, as soon as we can manage, to avoid artificial light during the long days. We keep the lights off unless we're in a room and we need to see; my kids are in training to help. I use a tiny light with a switch for night needs. We're going to try the new wind-up flashlights (apparently with an internal metal hydride battery). I look forward to curtailing my trips to Metro toxics and worrying about a bulb breaking in my house and releasing its toxic cloud. In the meantime I am stuck trying to inform the rest of the world about the need to recycle fluorescent bulbs and I hope recycling them becomes more convenient so more people will.
